The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Sprint Communications Company v. Jacobs is whether federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there is a related state proceeding that is “remedial” not “coercive.”  The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief in this case. 

While this is more of a state case than a local case, the case does have relevance to local governments.  Most remedial proceedings happen on the local level and involve zoning variances, the denial of gun permits, and the like.   As discussed in the SLLC’s brief, local governments may prefer that these cases be heard in state court rather than federal court for a variety of reasons including cost and accessibility.   

Sprint refused to pay intrastate access charges to an Iowa communications company for a service and filed a complaint with the Iowa Utility Board (IUB) seeking a declaration that it was under no obligation to do so. The IUB ordered Sprint to pay, and Sprint challenged the IUB’s decision in federal and state courts simultaneously.  Applying the Younger abstention doctrine, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the federal district court should not hear the case, if at all, until the state court review of the IUB decision was complete. The Supreme Court will decide whether it matters for the purposes of abstention that Sprint initially asked the IUB for approval—a remedial proceeding—or if Younger abstention only applies where the state brings a party before a state court or administrative board in a coercive proceeding.

The SLLC’s brief argues what should matter in determining whether Younger abstention applies is the strength of the state interest in the proceeding not the label of “remedial” or “coercive.”  And the integrity of the judicial process is maintained by state courts being allowed to resolve issues initiated before them that directly affect state and local government.